Pak responsible for poor ties The Statesman 24 Sep 19
https://epaper.thestatesman.com/2341907/Delhi-The-Statesman/24-09-2019#page/9
Pak responsible for poor ties 24 Sep 19
Every Indian Prime Minister, on assuming office, attempts to normalize relations between India and Pak. However, being a democracy, it seeks to interact with its elected counterparts. It does make exceptions only when Pak is headed by a dictator, which has been for over half its history. It has never attempted to speak to its army leadership, as it does not consider it democratically acceptable. This is possibly one of the reasons no talks have ever moved forward. Every other visitor to Pak does a photo-op in Islamabad and has serious discussions in Rawalpindi.
Within Pak, there are different power centres, each seeking control of the nation’s policies. The army desires control over foreign and security policies, especially when concerning India, Afghanistan, US and China. Any attempt to change this status quo has met with resistance, the removal of Nawaz being proof. The Pak army’s power stems from enmity towards India, whom they project as desiring to break the sanctity of the country, and regaining Kashmir, which they consider their jugular vein. Hence, it seeks to stall talks. There were four attempts at peace by India in recent times, each stymied by the deep state.
In Feb 1999, Vajpayee made his famous trip to Lahore. He signed the Lahore declaration, hoping to open a new chapter in Indo-Pak relations. This was followed by Kargil in May the same year. All peace efforts went into the dustbin. In May 2001, Vajpayee made a second attempt at the Agra summit with Musharraf, the Pak dictator and mastermind behind Kargil. No declaration was signed however, the summit was followed by two major attacks. The first was the J and K legislature building in Srinagar on 01 Oct, leaving 38 dead and the Parliament attack in Dec, which claimed 14 lives. It ended Vajpayee’s peace attempts.
In Nov 2008, the Pak foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi (also the present foreign minister) was visiting India for talks with his counterpart, Pranab Mukherjee, seeking to change the Indo-Pak narrative. India had opened a trade route to POK for the first time. He was pulled out of a press conference and told to return to Pak immediately, as the deep state had launched the Mumbai terror attack. This brought an end to Manmohan’s attempts at peace.
Modi on becoming the PM hoped to start a new chapter. He visited Nawaz in Lahore on his birthday and the wedding of his granddaughter in Dec 2015, apart from inviting him for his swearing in. The deep state, seeking to break the bonhomie and ensure that no talks move forward, launched the Pathankot terror strike less than a week later.
Post multiple bitter experiences, India changed its approach. The present policy of the Indian government states, ‘talks and terrorism cannot be bedfellows.’ Imran, on assuming office made multiple calls for talks, claiming ‘you take one step forward, we will take two.’ All these calls were rejected as Pak continued exporting terrorists. India had learnt the hard way, talks, while terrorism continues is valueless.
Earlier Indian governments were willing for discussions despite the employment of terrorism as they were influenced by Pak’s nuclear threats. With the dispelling of the nuclear myth by the Balakote strike, India became firmer in its approach. This has since rattled Pakistan’s leadership.
With India rejecting Pak’s demands for talks, Imran began seeking international mediation. Two agreements signed between the nations at Shimla and Lahore have made mediation a no-go area. He failed to realise, that for mediation both nations must be willing, and the atmosphere must be one of trust and acceptance. Despite all his rhetoric’s, Trump is aware that India would never accept mediation or even consider talks, till Pak stops exporting terror.
Post the abrogation of Article 370, it was Pak which took the first step to degrade Indo-Pak ties by returning the Indian High Commissioner. This closed a possible window for reconciliation. On the international stage Pak initially accused India of refusing to talk, subsequently sought international mediation and finally went on to claim that talking to India is fruitless. In the last few days, Imran has gone further claiming that Pak would not continue with back channel diplomacy, closing the last door. To add to distancing of ties, he claims that India is behind Pakistan’s financial woes.
Imran has recently even threatened a nuclear war over Kashmir. In every interview with the international press he mentions that any terrorist strike in Kashmir could lead to a conflict, which may snowball into a nuclear one. The message which he desires to convey is that Pak would continue with its present policy of exporting terrorism, as without violence in Kashmir, there would be no international involvement to resolve the dispute. Which mature national leadership can demand talks on one hand and talk of a nuclear war on the other?
Internally, the Pak leadership has in their addresses to their local public on the abrogation of article 370 been building an anti-India hype. It has led to an anti-India wave within Pak, which is contrary to any attempts at talks. While in their present dire financial circumstances, such a hype may divert public minds from accusing the present government and army for having failed the nation, it also closes any options for talks as any acceptance by India would indicate talks under Pak pressure.
India has ignored Pak’s ranting and raving, while remaining prepared for its likely misadventures. It is aware that its decisions on Kashmir are within its constitution and cannot be reversed by any power. It has not closed its doors for talks. It has only insisted on Pak eradicating exporting terrorists prior to talks.
Talks can only occur when two nations work towards creating a conducive environment. This implies building trust to indicate that talks, when they commence, would not be derailed by a terrorist strike. India is not responsible for the relationship moving downhill. It places a simple condition, stop terrorism and commence talks. The ball is in Pak’s court.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army